Bhusuku wrote:And if Dzogchen contradicts the sutra/tantra teachings even on such basic buddhist doctrines, what is actually the use of studying sutra teachings at all for someone who's mainly interested in Dzogchen? I mean, isn't it actually a waste of time studying Abhidharma, if later on you realize that the Dzogchen teachings have a complete different POV on many Abhidharma subjects? The same applies for studying Madhyamaka: why waste many years to gain an in depth understanding of the two truths if later on you realize that there's only one truth in Dzogchen?

This is a very good question. I have been moving slowly toward the pov of view that for most people studying these lower yānas is a complete waste of time. Oh, it can be useful to study a bit of Abhidharma because it helps contextualize mandala practice, and Madhyamaka does help cut through intellectual proliferation, properly studied and absorbed. Studying a bit of Madhyamaka helps one avoid the pitfal of crypto-advaita.

Also places where Dzogchen differs from sutra and tantra will not be readily understood if one does not have at least some superficial familarity with them.

You don't really need to study all this sutra stuff to understand Dzogchen, and as far as Tantra goes, anuyoga is sufficient. On the other hand, also a practitioner needs to understands that nothing really limits their practice to so called "Dzogchen practice" -- anything at all whether from Buddhist or non-Buddhist sources like Yoga, etc., can be incoporated into Dzogchen practitioner's life. One can even participate in a non-Buddhist religion, if for some reason that is necessary.

I personally think one will understand Dzogchen much better if one is grounded in sutra and tantra, but no, it is not completely necessary to learn these things. Understanding the five elements, three gates, emptiness, and bodhicitta are about all one needs at bare minimum. That, and a realized Guru -- and those are in rather short supply.

Namdrol wrote:Studying a bit of Madhyamaka helps one avoid the pitfal of crypto-advaita.

Understanding the fundamentals of Buddhism -- skandhas, āyatanas, dhātus, pratītyasamutpāda, noble truths -- is how one avoids Advaita and other wrong views. That, bodhicitta, and a bit of Madhyamaka. However, there's no need to know much more.

You know, I've been thinking the same, although my knowledge doesn't even come close to yours (so I don't know exactly what I'm missing). It's just that the more I learn about Dzogchen, the more I get convinced that it can stand almost, if not entirely, alone, as long as one has a qualified master and good spiritual friends to ask questions.I think "The Precious Vase", by ChNN, covers the minimal requirements of what needs to be known. Much more than that seems a little dispensable, as long as one has quality guidance and doesn't come to Dzogchen with deeply rooted and terribly mistaken views.The Precious Vase summarizes many things that took me years to learn from several sources and to that adds a few more with nice clarity (especially about Tantra- there were steps during empowerments that I received that I understand much better now- and, obviously Dzogchen). I believe this is a book everyone wanting to practice Dzogchen without a solid Buddhist background should read and practice. More is fine, perhaps on Madhyamaka to avoid the pitfal of crypto-advaita as has been said. Less may be insufficient. The base level of the SMS program seems very well structured. I'm considering engaging in it although I'll be repeating some steps I did when I practiced Ngöndro, but nevertheless I'm feeling quite tempted to go through it.

While I am violently in agreement with the gist of this as it accords with one's own practice, I think it is important that one is able to explain the dharma to students at all levels of understanding. Not everyone is ready for the highest view. If one is never going to teach, there is probably limited benefit to a khenpo or geshe curriculum. (Studying a little shentong or Shaktadvaita can help avoid the pitfall of crypto-nihilism, though!)

There is however a problem I have seen even among people who have received dzogchen teachings with a lack of enthusiastic perseverance that a more solid grounding in tonglen/lojong would give them. There is no question that bodhicitta is entirely contained within dzogchen view if one really understands, but at least in my experience many people who profess a dzogchen view have more of an intellectual approach than an experiential one. This is exactly the sort of pitfall that a realized guru will be able to point out and undercut. Without a true master of dzogchen, I think the whole path becomes much, much more complicated.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

Bhusuku wrote:And if Dzogchen contradicts the sutra/tantra teachings even on such basic buddhist doctrines, what is actually the use of studying sutra teachings at all for someone who's mainly interested in Dzogchen? I mean, isn't it actually a waste of time studying Abhidharma, if later on you realize that the Dzogchen teachings have a complete different POV on many Abhidharma subjects? The same applies for studying Madhyamaka: why waste many years to gain an in depth understanding of the two truths if later on you realize that there's only one truth in Dzogchen?

In what way does Dzogchen contradict the sutra and tantra teachings?

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

When Dzogchen is presented as a path in itself and as the ultimate - well then it just gets taken on as an idea. So Madyamaka is really the crucial foundation. If you 'think' there is a difference between the intent of Dzogchen and Prajanparamita then you haven't really understood - this leads people astray. You know the words differ but the intent does not. Understand the sutras in a perfect way and you understand Dzogchen in a perfect way. A lot of this talk of Dzogchen being a vehicle by itself is like the 'Emporer's New Clothes' fairytale when the smartest tailor offers up clothes that at first look the finest, but that aren't really anything at all. If you take the not anything at all as something then you just look like an idiot. There are a lot of smart people in the Dzogchen Community who understand this.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

"Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising."

This Sutta is just same with prajnaparamitta Sutta. Different words, but Referring to the same meaning.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

Except Dzogchen is not progressive ... and it relies on Guru's presentation.

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Progressive and non progressive relies on the human capability, not on the teaching.

If we see sutra Mahamudra for example, the explanation is direct. On paper, by reading that statement, the next second you should realize it. But in practise, things doesn't work in that way. So many practitioners, even he is Dzoghchen or Mahamudra practitioner have to spend years and years in their meditation.

The one that realize just by hearing is very very rare. Huineng is capable to realize it instantly when the 5th patriarch describing ultimate nature. He didnt know how to read, but he realize it straight away. He is not a tantric practitioner.

In Sutta schools, there are also people who has this capability to realize directly the ultimate nature. This can be seen in the life history of Buddha's students.

I don't think all Theravada students are the progressive type. Some of them can be the direct type as well.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

DarwidHalim - Nice post.Sönam - Dzogchen is progressive when it is taught as a vehicle in itself via the Guru's presentation. In the DC there is an idea of levels and progress. If you say something is ultimate then people think they will get the ultimate and become 'the ultimate'. But higher views depend on lower views - it's just conceptual fabrication. Obviously there is no such thing as Dzogchen and this knowing is part of having knowledge not just of Dzogchen but of Buddha dharma. A paradox. You have to know you are naked rather than being proud - showing off your fine new clothes the tailor made for you doesn't make it work.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Maybe it's time for a 'Dzogchen Wheel' forum for those who are now pursuing a far superior and advanced practice compared with those within ordinary mundane old Mahayana?

Two easy questions:

Does Dzogchen need Buddhism?

Does Buddhism need Dzogchen?

Watching Dzogchen threads here proliferate, much of it seems to be based on dangling the exclusivity and superiority of it which reminds me of the uncomfotable threads where Vajrayana practitioners talk of the incompleteness of 'Hinayana'.

I have no idea whether Dzogchen is superior, or what it may be superior to, but I'm pretty sure that eventually another practice will be hailed as THE practice leading directly to enlightenment.

It used to be Tantra, then Highest Yoga Tantra and Mahamudra, now Dzogchen.

''The only way the true nature of your mind may be revealed is by...........(insert invisible and intangible product here, available only from mutually-approved dealerships) .'' LOL

I can't comment on whether Dzogchen works or not, nor whether it is superior or not, nor even whether it is a part of Buddhism or the other way round. However, I am very wary, having made a few bad decisions in the past. As a marketing professional, I can't help observe the patterns.

So why does Dzogchen throw Sutra and Tantra out the window so to speak Is Tantra incomplete compared to Dzogchen, If so many Tantric schools produce highly accomplished masters why is Dzogchen not the pinnacle of all of them ?

Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Caz wrote:So why does Dzogchen throw Sutra and Tantra out the window so to speak Is Tantra incomplete compared to Dzogchen, If so many Tantric schools produce highly accomplished masters why is Dzogchen not the pinnacle of all of them ?

Tashi delek,

Dzogchen doesn't deny anything else or throw out of the windows, because all is present as perfect inside Dzogchen.Therefore Dzogchen is the Great Perfection, it is complete.

But Dzogchen cannot be compared to Tantra (point of view) because Dzogchen is not dependent on anything else. One cannot compare for instance Dzogchen Samayas with Tantric Samayas. Even the aspect of emptiness is a different aproach.

Further does a Dzogchenpa respect Sutra and Tantra. This because the 9 (gradual) vehicles / ways of Nyingma and Bon does encompass Sutra and Tantra, but Dzogchen is here very clear allways the crown / fruit.

My view is that of Dzogchen,My meditation practice is that of the Yidam,My personal conduct is that of a sutra adept.~Tokden Rinpoche Drime Yungdrung

So not everybody can understand / practice Dzogchen without the help of the gradual way (9 ways), there are sure exceptions like Taphirista and Garab Dorje. Last mentioned persons are emanations from their enlightened State and could in their guise on earth as human, explain Dzogchen in a perfect way.........

Mutsog MarroKY

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

Andrew108 wrote:When Dzogchen is presented as a path in itself and as the ultimate - well then it just gets taken on as an idea.

This is not at all an inherent risk. It could happen to someone, but is not bound or even likely to happen to everyone.

Andrew108 wrote:If you 'think' there is a difference between the intent of Dzogchen and Prajanparamita then you haven't really understood

Well, this is true, but Dzogchen makes explicit what Prajnaparamita only hints at. And of course the methods and upadeshas of Dzogchen proper are only to be found in Dzogchen.

Andrew108 wrote:Understand the sutras in a perfect way and you understand Dzogchen in a perfect way.

If this were true then there would have been no need for the Dzogchen tantras, direct introduction, or methods.

Andrew108 wrote:A lot of this talk of Dzogchen being a vehicle by itself is like the 'Emporer's New Clothes' fairytale when the smartest tailor offers up clothes that at first look the finest, but that aren't really anything at all.

No, to say that Dzogchen is a stand-alone vehicle simply means that ultimate realization does not depend on mind-made efforts at accumulating merit and wisdom. One does not have to make efforts at meditating on compassion or contemplating shunyata apart from Dzogchen contemplation--the fruits of such efforts are already primordially, spontaneously present. These facts are, however, entirely separate from the question of whether a given Dzogchen practitioner would greatly benefit from meditating on compassion, bodhicitta, emptiness, or engaging in any other Buddhist topic. For many these things are great helpers on the path leading up to and including Dzogchen. I know they helped me and occasionally I return to them as I feel is beneficial.

Caz wrote:So why does Dzogchen throw Sutra and Tantra out the window so to speak Is Tantra incomplete compared to Dzogchen, If so many Tantric schools produce highly accomplished masters why is Dzogchen not the pinnacle of all of them ?

Dzogchen doesn't throw sutra or tantra out the window anymore than calculus throws algebra or basic addition and subtraction out the window. It's just that Dzogchen, unlike these forms of math, does not necessitate that one learn the more fundamental teachings before one can comprehend Dzogchen itself. And according to Dzogchen, the end result of sutra or tantra will be receipt, from all the fully enlightened buddhas, of the rigpai tsal wang or empowerment into the energy of knowledge, also known as the direct introduction. So, this means bodhisattvas on the verge of buddhahood... and as I understand it, it will be more of an instantaneous, complete realization of Dzogchen upon being introduced for them rather than the way it usually works for us ordinary Joes.

Namdrol wrote:...I have been moving slowly toward the pov of view that for most people studying these lower yānas is a complete waste of time...

This is coming from a man who spent decades studying the lower yana.

My dear N. as it ever occurred to you that it was as a consequence of decades of causal path practices that you accumulated the merit to be able to fully understand and practice (and even teach) Dzogchen? Or maybe you don't believe in karma now either? Is that why you are suddenly open to non-Buddhist practices and traditions? I mean a month ago you took Jax to pieces for saying something very similar (albeit that Jax also negated the need for a guru) and now you are suddenly sounding all new-age and ecumenical. It's been a while since you have seen your guru tete-a-tete, hasn't it?

Blue Garuda wrote:Maybe it's time for a 'Dzogchen Wheel' forum for those who are now pursuing a far superior and advanced practice compared with those within ordinary mundane old Mahayana?

Two easy questions:

Does Dzogchen need Buddhism?

Does Buddhism need Dzogchen?

Watching Dzogchen threads here proliferate, much of it seems to be based on dangling the exclusivity and superiority of it which reminds me of the uncomfotable threads where Vajrayana practitioners talk of the incompleteness of 'Hinayana'.

I have no idea whether Dzogchen is superior, or what it may be superior to, but I'm pretty sure that eventually another practice will be hailed as THE practice leading directly to enlightenment.

It used to be Tantra, then Highest Yoga Tantra and Mahamudra, now Dzogchen.

''The only way the true nature of your mind may be revealed is by...........(insert invisible and intangible product here, available only from mutually-approved dealerships) .'' LOL

I can't comment on whether Dzogchen works or not, nor whether it is superior or not, nor even whether it is a part of Buddhism or the other way round. However, I am very wary, having made a few bad decisions in the past. As a marketing professional, I can't help observe the patterns.

BG,

It's important to understand what the context is for Dzogchen's statements about its superiority: first, it has to do with Dzogchen not being based on mind, as all other Buddhist vehicles [excepting Mahamudra] necessarily are, but rather on wisdom. As Buddhahood is primordially complete within each being's latent wisdom, it can only be realized rather than accumulated. It is uncompounded and spontaneously present, so it cannot be brought about. From Dzogchen's POV, Dzogchen is simply every being's nature and, in terms of being a teaching or path, it is simply the awakening to that nature--as such, all Buddhist practitioners will pass through that gate even if not by attending a Dzogchen event and obtaining a Dzogchen guru. All Buddhists will eventually become bodhissatvas and all bodhisattvas will pass into complete buddhahood through being directly introduced--either by obtaining a guru on the path or upon the verge of buddhahood by all the buddhas.

All of Buddhism, including Shravakayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, or Mahamudra and Dzogchen, are simply means made available to us by realized beings according to our needs and capacities. From that POV, all these paths are equal because they are all valid paths taught by realized beings which will lead to eventual realization for those who engage in them. Within the context of how direct a path an individual can handle, and how direct a path can be, Dzogchen is superior because one is directly introduced to the nature all beings qualitatively have in common. So it's not an elite thing. It's a "get there the best way for you" thing. For some especially fortunate ones, that means Dzogchen or Mahamudra. For other still exceedingly fortunate ones, that may mean Theravada, Mahayana, or HYT.

Last edited by Pema Rigdzin on Mon May 14, 2012 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Caz wrote:So why does Dzogchen throw Sutra and Tantra out the window so to speak Is Tantra incomplete compared to Dzogchen, If so many Tantric schools produce highly accomplished masters why is Dzogchen not the pinnacle of all of them ?

Dzogchen doesn't throw sutra or tantra out the window anymore than calculus throws algebra or basic addition and subtraction out the window. It's just that Dzogchen, unlike these forms of math, does not necessitate that one learn the more fundamental teachings before one can comprehend Dzogchen itself. And according to Dzogchen, the end result of sutra or tantra will be receipt, from all the fully enlightened buddhas, of the rigpai tsal wang or empowerment into the energy of knowledge, also known as the direct introduction. So, this means bodhisattvas on the verge of buddhahood... and as I understand it, it will be more of an instantaneous, complete realization of Dzogchen upon being introduced for them rather than the way it usually works for us ordinary Joes.

To understand what rigpa might be then it is essential to bring into your experience both Rangtong views and Shentong views. You can't really get a good view of what Shentong implies unless you get the consequences of Rangtong - it has to be progressive. Both second and third turnings of the wheel of dharma are required for an understanding of rigpa that doesn't end up going against the amazingness of the Dzogchen view. So no actually you DO have to internalize the fundamental teachings before you can comprehend Dzogchen.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.